A TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. PAGE. Atkinson, Joshua J., permanent trustee of Wm. C. Spindler, vs. James Albert, Wm. J. and Emily his wife vs. The Savings Bank of Baltimore et al., Abbot, Horace et al. vs. The Baltimore and Rappahannock Steam 542 407 507 Baltzel, Philip, surviving partner of Thomas Baltzel, vs. Ann Trump, exr'x. of Wm. B. Trump, 517 Bank of Westminster vs. Wm. Pinkney Whyte, permanent trustee of Brooks, Chauncy et al. vs. Henry H. Dent, adm'r. d. b. n. of Henry Brawner et al., Brooks, Chauncy et al. vs. Jno. H. Delaplaine et al., 523 351 87 nette Dorsey, Buckingham, Larkin, the Attorney General at the relation of, vs. Ja Carroll, Elizabeth vs. Jno. Stanler, 31 36 Clark and Mankin vs. Elizabeth Abbott and Wm. H. V. Cornise, 474 Crain, Peter W. et al. vs. Barnes and Fergusson, 151 Crouch, Thos. M. et al. vs. Harriet Smith et al., 401 Duvall, Edwin W. and Peter Sausser vs. J. J. Speed and Josias Pen Georges Creek Coal and Iron Co. vs. Christian E. Detmold, 371 Gibbs, Robt. M. et al. vs. Wm. C. Cunningham et al., 44 Gilmor, Robt. vs. Jno. McP. Brien et al., 40 Glenn, Jno., trustee of Childs vs. Wm. Baker and Benj. Childs, Green, Edward, trustee vs. True Putney and Hugh Riddle, Hamilton, Jno. vs. Annapolis and Elk Ridge R. R. Co. et al., 73 239 420 262 445 107 Harness, Wm. et al. vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co., 248 34 Hintze, Frederick G. B. vs. Christopher Stingle and wife, 283 Hollis, Frances, by her next friend, vs. Thos. J. Hayes and Amos Hollis, 479 Jones, Saml., Jr. vs. Robert B. Hancock et al., 187 Jones and White vs. Lloyd Brown et al., 191 Keerl, Geo. H. and Henry K. Fulton vs. Robt. Fulton, 532 Kiddall, Eliza M. vs. Wm. Trimble, surviving executor of Jane Jacob, 143 Little, Christopher vs. Jno. R. Price et al., 182 Malcom, Jas., permanent trustee of Henry Keene, vs. Washington Hall, Jr., 172 Mantz, Casper, adm'r. vs. Buchanan et al., 202 McTavish, Jno. and Emily his wife, exr'x of Charles Carroll of Carroll Pue, Richard R. prochein ami of Matilda R. H. Pue and Henry Pue, Small, Philip A. et al. vs. Charlotte C. D. Owings et al., 363 Snyder, Hannah, et al. vs. Julia Snyder et al., 295 Spangler, Catharine vs. Jno. Stanler et al., 36 Sullivan Jno. et al. vs. Tuck, ex'r of Bowie, Tayman, Levi L. vs. Jno. Mitchel et al., Thomas, Saml. W. vs. Wood, ex'r. of Harrison, Washington University of Baltimore et al. vs. Edward Green, 59 496 296 489 13 87 Waters, Charles A. vs. Charles Howard and wife et al., 112 196 West and Courtenay, admrs. of West vs. Nathl. Williams, 358 Wheeler, Thomas T's Estate, 80 White, Elizabeth Ann et al. vs. Jos. White and Jno. C. White, 53 Whyte, Wm. P., permanent trustee of Geo. Suter vs. Jno. Fisher et al., 536 A BILL for the specific performance of a contract is an application to the sound discretion of the court, which withholds or grants relief according to the circumstances of each particular case, and in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in such cases, the court, though not exempt from the general rules and principles of equity, acts with more freedom than when exercising its ordinary powers. The contract must be fair, and just, and certain, and founded on an adequate consideration, and if deficient in either of these requisites, its performance will not be decreed; hence the plaintiff who seeks the enforcement must make out a stronger case than is required of him who resists the decree. The contract must also possess the essential ingredient of mutuality, and in cases of inequality of obligation, it is better to leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law for damages; for if equity acts at all, it must act ex vigore, and carry the contract into execution with unmitigated severity. The manifest object of the defendant in this case, (and which he believed was secured by the contract,) was to have the minerals on his farm worked as well as explored, and by the contract he gave full power to P., the assignor of the plaintiff, to make explorations and to work the mines, but the only engagement on the part of P. being limited to explorations, and he not being bound to work the mines, the contract was held deficient in reciprocity of obligation, and its specific execution refused. |